If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I've seen two tweets saying the State was going to ask for a continuance today. In the chat on Court Chatter link someone suggested they took the video down while other people were going before the judge. Don't have a clue honestly, but it isn't streaming.

HENDERSON COUNTY, Tenn. - One of two new suspects charged in connection with the disappearance of nursing student Holly Bobo will no longer have to wear a GPS ankle monitor.

During a brief hearing in Henderson County General Session Court on Tuesday afternoon, prosecutors told the judge that the Board of Probation could no longer monitor Jeff Pearcy's ankle monitor since he has not been convicted of a crime. The monitor will now be removed.

The judge set the next hearing for July 29 at 1 p.m. Pearcy was also warned not to contact any witnesses in the case.

The lady witness's testimony (if believed by a jury) is proof that the video existed.

No. In the example you cited they had the video, but it had been overwritten (so there would still be trace evidence that it actually existed). Under those circumstances a witness could testify to what had been observed to be the tape. So there would be corroboration.

That wouldn't apply in this case since there is no evidence that the recording actually existed to corroborate the account.

Remember, the charges these guys are facing relates to the what happened to the alleged video itself, not what was on the video. They will have to provide some kind of evidence to corroborate that the recording actually existed, a mere single claim is not sufficient.

If you want a draw a connecting line you need at least two points. With just one point you have a line that could go in any direction, almost all of which are the wrong direction. That is why corroboration is needed. If they want their charge to go anywhere they have to have at a bare minimum a second point.

No. In the example you cited they had the video, but it had been overwritten (so there would still be trace evidence that it actually existed). Under those circumstances a witness could testify to what had been observed to be the tape. So there would be corroboration.

That wouldn't apply in this case since there is no evidence that the recording actually existed to corroborate the account.

Remember, the charges these guys are facing relates to the what happened to the alleged video itself, not what was on the video. They will have to provide some kind of evidence to corroborate that the recording actually existed, a mere single claim is not sufficient.

If you want a draw a connecting line you need at least two points. With just one point you have a line that could go in any direction, almost all of which are the wrong direction. That is why corroboration is needed. If they want their charge to go anywhere they have to have at a bare minimum a second point.

"They will have to provide some kind of evidence to corroborate that the recording actually existed, a mere single claim is not sufficient.

"If you want a draw a connecting line you need at least two points."

That is simply not an accurate view of the law. The testimony to a single witness of a certain fact (in this case, the existence of the video) is sufficient as proof - if the jury believes them, of course.

In this case, a single witness could testify that there was a video, and as to what they saw on it.

Is that weak? In my opinion, absolutely. Is that weaker than having a video that has been destroyed by being overwritten? In my opinion, absolutely. But is it allowable and enough to convict, according to the law? Yes (at least in the jurisdictions I am familiar with). You only legally have to have one witness, not multiple ones.

An article that goes into a little more depth about Zack's suicide and assualt.

On June 13, Chester County Sheriff Deputy Mark Griffin received an incident statement from corrections officer Mark Morris, which stated that Morris had overheard Adams make suicidal comments, “specifically to throw himself from the highest point to which he could climb inside his cell,” according to a report sent out from the sheriff’s department today.

“I advised second shift supervisor, Sgt Brown, to have Inmate Adams moved to a specialized cell so that he could be monitored and observed twenty-four hours per day to prevent him from injuring himself,” Griffin wrote in the report.

Zack is lucky it is summertime. It would be a little chilly sleeping naked in a concrete cell during the winter.

I really doubt they were polite about it. Most likely they just stormed the cell without him knowing what was going on. Why else would they send an entire team to move him when a single warden could do it? Is it normal to send a swat team in when moving an inmate from one cell to another? I think not. He would have assumed they were going to beat him up. It sounds from the description that he was just defending himself.